Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 233 (2026)

Rescission - Cases when party may rescind

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A party to a contract may rescind the same in the following cases only: 1. If the consent of the party rescinding, or of any party jointly contracting with him, was given by mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds, or of any other party to the contract jointly interested with such party. 2. If through the fault of the party as to whom he rescinds, the consideration for his obligation fails in whole or in part. 3. If such consideration becomes entirely void from any cause. 4. If such consideration, before it is rendered to him, fails in a material respect, from any cause; 5. By consent of all of the other parties; or 6. If the party against whom rescission is sought violates the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, Section 751 et seq. of this title. R.L. 1910, § 984. Amended by Laws 1999, c. 175, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Mercury Inv. Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 706 P.2d 523 (Okla. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mercury Inv. Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 706 P.2d 523 (Okla. 1985). · cites it 2× “The statute, 15 O.S.1981 § 233(2), refers to the relief of termination for failure of consideration as “rescission”.”
French Energy, Inc. v. Alexander, 818 P.2d 1234 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 3× “2 Equitable relief by rescission stands partly codified in 15 O.S.1981 § 233. 3 The two equitable grounds for rescinding the contract, pressed by the buyer here and below, are *1241 mistake 4 and total failure of consideration.”
Bonner v. Oklahoma Rock Corp., 863 P.2d 1176 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 2× “15 O.S.1991 § 233. 58 “Failure of consideration,” which in law is distinguished from “want of consideration,” 59 means that a bargained-for consideration, originally in existence and good, has since become worthless or has ceased to exist or been extinguished, partially or…”
Marshall Huffman Virginia Newton v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P'ship, a Maryland Ltd. P'ship, 194 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 1999). ““‘[F]ailure of consideration,’ ” which may be shown by parol evidence, includes “ the neglect, refusal, or failure of one of the parties to perform or furnish the consideration agreed upon.” Bonner v.”
State Ex Rel. Hettel v. Sec. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. in Duncan, 922 P.2d 600 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 3× “Hettel argues that pursuant to 15 O.S.1991 § 233(B) no amendment to his pleadings was necessary.”
Jernigan v. Jernigan, 2006 OK 22 (Okla. 2006). “The terms of 15 O.S.2001 § 233 provide in pertinent part: A party to a contract may rescind the same in the following cases only: 1.”
Silver v. Slusher, 770 P.2d 878 (Okla. 1989). “If such consideration becomes entirely void from any cause. 4. If such consideration, before it is rendered to him, fails in a material respect, from any cause; or, 5.”
Palace Expl. Co. v. Petroleum Dev. Co., 316 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 2003). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 233 . Constructive fraud exists: (1) [i]n any breach of duty which, without an actual fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of anyone…”
Silk v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 760 P.2d 174 (Okla. 1988). “See, 15 O.S.1981, § 233. Thus we will consider whether Silk’s action for rescission may be supported on the theory that the option was not supported by consideration, or alternatively, that the consideration was grossly inadequate.”
Oxley v. Gen. Atl. Resources, Inc., 936 P.2d 943 (Okla. 1997). “15 O.S.1991 § 233 provides that a party to a contract may rescind the contract, if the consent was given by mistake or obtained through duress, fraud or undue influence.”
Sides v. John Cordes, Inc., 1999 OK 36 (Okla. 1999). “The dealership urged on appeal, as well as in its certiorari response, that plaintiffs were required to mitigate their damages by accepting the dealership’s offer to replace the purchased car. Defendant’s reliance on this defense obliquely conveys the notion that plaintiffs were…”
Scrivner v. Sonat Expl. Co., 242 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2001). “Okla Stat. tit. 15, § 233 (emphasis added).”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 233(2) — 2 cases
Mercury Inv. Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 706 P.2d 523 (Okla. 1985). “The statute, 15 O.S.1981 § 233(2), refers to the relief of termination for failure of consideration as “rescission”.”
Fairchild v. Swearingen, 2014 OK CIV APP 50 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 233(4) — 1 case
Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Anderson, 1999 OK CIV APP 46 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 233(B) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Hettel v. Sec. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. in Duncan, 922 P.2d 600 (Okla. 1996). “Hettel argues that pursuant to 15 O.S.1991 § 233(B) no amendment to his pleadings was necessary.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.